Evidence for Jesus Christ?

[Minimalist]

I believe them with my whole heart

Oh, I absolutely accept that.

Of course, I also accept that muslim suicide bombers think they are getting 72 virgins for blowing themselves to bits.


People believe lots of stupid shit. You'll get no argument from me on that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I obviously cannot prove any of this but I can say that I am just as certain that God exists as I am that I do!

Personal certitude is not the same as certainty and not the same as knowledge. (gnosis)


Either provides some evidence for your beliefs of fuck off.

I'm so sorry (well OK, I'm not) if that sound harsh or unkind. I DO have sound reasons: (1)the same drivel is hurled at us on about a weekly basis. (2) A total waste of time trying to argue with an apologist;they are unwilling to entertain the POSSIBILITY of error. That makes them closed minded,and intellectually dishonest. (3) Personal failing I guess, but I refuse to suffer fools.

same drivel:Eg

a true Christian believes that God is just and pure in righteousness,

That's called "the no true Scotsman fallacy"

There isn't anything in the Bible that has ever been disproven,

Oh for suck sake! There's stupid and ignorant and then there are statements like that. We don't have to disprove ANYTHING,it's you who are making the claims, it's up to you to provide the evidence.Provide some or shut the fuck up. (sorry, feeling a bit frustrated)

Current archaeology:I refer you to " THE BIBLE UNEARTHED: Archaeology's New Vision Of Ancient Israel And the Origin Of Sacred Texts" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

EG There was no large Davidic kingdom and that Moses and the Exodus are pure myth.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts[1] is a 2001 book about the archaeology of Israel and its relationship to the origins of the Hebrew Bible. The authors are Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.

Methodology

The authors describe their approach as one "in which the Bible is one of the most important artifacts and cultural achievements [but] not the unquestioned narrative framework into which every archaeological find must be fit." Their main contention is that
“ ...an archaeological analysis of the patriarchal, conquest, judges, and United Monarchy narratives [shows] that while there is no compelling archaeological evidence for any of them, there is clear archaeological evidence that places the stories themselves in a late 7th-century BCE context. ”

On the basis of this evidence they propose
“ ...an archaeological reconstruction of the distinct histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, highlighting the largely neglected history of the Omride Dynasty and attempting to show how the influence of Assyrian imperialism in the region set in motion a chain of events that would eventually make the poorer, more remote, and more religiously conservative kingdom of Judah the belated center of the cultic and national hopes of all Israel. ”

As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com[2] the approach and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly new. Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Ha'aretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

[tackattack]

Pad, you know I'm an apologist and I'd be happy to entertain the idea I'm wrong, I do it all the time (usually from my wife).

You should expect the no true Scotsman fallacy when painting with such a pessimistic broad brush.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Pad, you know I'm an apologist and I'd be happy to entertain the idea I'm wrong, I do it all the time (usually from my wife)..

Yes Tacky,sorry. I must qualify : I was referring to MOST apologists we get here including the dropkick to whom I was responding. It was not my intention to include you.

You should expect the no true Scotsman fallacy when painting with such a pessimistic broad brush.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I concede I'm a bit negative to those with a legalist attitude.By that I mean those who quote scripture ad nauseum,but show little if any understanding off of the message of Christianity. Giving witness in not about arguing,but behaviour . What I call "small 'c' Christians" (such as my beloved mother) give witness by the way they live. They do not try to convince anyone of the truth of their beliefs.My mother loves and accepts me unconditionally. She has no fears a for my soul as she truly believes in the infinite love and forgiveness of God. Mum knows I do my best to live by conscience, and am probably more a good man than a bad one. Sometimes, I envy her faith.

Expect logical fallacies? Of course,let them them go? No,not when they come from a person allegedly presenting a rational argument to refute a position I hold. Well,at least on a forum. I'm a bit more tolerant in real life,especially with people I care about.

[Minimalist]

Apologists invent excuses for why their bullshit is right...even when facts are against them.

[Dan]

@ padraic - I appreciate your response. I used to feel hate towards people before I became a Christian, just like you do towards me for what I believe in. Not everyone who says they are a Christian is, and these people have given others the wrong impressions about Christianity. Regardless of whether it is true or not, the Bible teaches us to love one another, to live in peace and harmony. This is my vision and the vision of the real church. If you don't believe me then study it for yourself. What reward is there with hate, anger, ignorance, dishonesty, vindictiveness and unforgiveness? I never found any, instead, I have come to realise it is much more rewarding personally to desire peace, love, harmony, tolerance, mercy and forgiveness. Hate causes seperation. Love brings togetherness. Regardless of what I believe, I want people to see that love is indeed more rewarding than hate. You hate me, I do not hate you friend and I tell you the truth, I feel nothing but compassion and sorrow for you, sorrow that you do not know the kind of love that I do. Nothing can possibly give oneself more joy than that what 'is found' in the Lord Jesus and the unprecidented grace and mercy of God! Regardless of whether my beliefs are right, this love, joy and compassion are real, and nothing can be more rewarding or satisfy the soul more than this!

[DeistPaladin]

Apologists invent excuses for why their bullshit is right...even when facts are against them.

Apologetics is the art of starting with a desired conclusion and finding reasons to believe it. This is an inherently intellectually dishonest profession.

Furthermore, what makes it really strange is since the desired conclusion is a matter of "faith", there is the tacit admission that no evidence (or insufficient evidence) exists. Faith is believing something without reason and against all reason. Apologetics is thus the art of looking for evidence to believe something while admitting that there is no evidence for the belief.

Just like theology is the study of that which is admitted to be impossible to study.

[Minimalist]

I especially love it when they trot out some 1895 archaeology book written by some fucking minister and use it to decide that modern radiocarbon dating is wrong.

Really, apologists are shitheads of a high order. Pure diarrhea of the cranium.

[tackattack]

Definition of APOLOGETICS
1
: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2
: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity

Definition of THEOLOGY
1
: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience

Definition of FAITH

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

from MW

Apologists assume a premise that God exists. They do it with theology. Experience, practice, religious faith are all observable therefore not impossible to study. Materialistic proof for the supra natural is a little ludicrous and pointless I agree; that however has nothing to do with reasonableness or logic.

It's about giving answers to questions just as Physical Science seeks to provide answers for physical truths, apologetics and theology do not have to be opposed to materialism or science.There is a difference between rationalizing and reasoning. Your redefining words to suit your purposes only seems to work for you.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I used to feel hate towards people before I became a Christian, just like you do towards me for what I believe in.

Ad homime response. Perhaps address my arguments rather than making patronising comments about me and your superiority. (implicit:I used to be like you, but now I'm better than you)



Hate you? Mate I don't know you well enough to hate you.I simply think the contents of your posts indicate you are a closed minded and ignorant fool. All that means is that I can't be bothered with you.

As for your claim of compassion,your smug and superior attitude suggest you have no understanding of the word. You simply reinforce one of my life observations: IE People who feel the need to claim a virtue or deny a vice, are usually lying,especially to themselves.


That's all I have to say to you. I was quite serious when I said I don't argue with apologists.EXCEPTION: I sometimes argue with Tacky who I like and respect.

---

It's about giving answers to questions just as Physical Science seeks to provide answers for physical truths, apologetics and theology do not have to be opposed to materialism or science

Just so Tacky, nor are they -except of course when materialism or physical science contradicts dogma.

I assert there is no evidence for the existence of God(s) and that it is rational not to believe. That it is irrational to argue the existence of God a priori. I insist that such a belief be a posteriori. THAT is where science and religion/theology/apologetics part company.